Demos, basically, have made sense since the days of shareware (as long as you've got a decent game worth demoing in the first place, obviously). For example, releasing the original Doom as shareware initially was a master stroke of genius. It's just strange that Nintendo is still trying to figure this out.
As much as I wish Wii U was getting all the games possible, I actually expect this game won't sell particularly on the system. It's just the kind of game I imagine might have done well enough at the start of the system's life and will possibly do pretty well on the other current-gen consoles, but now it seems almost pointless putting it on Wii U. I am, however, happy to see another bigger-ish third party title on there at least. I just hope it doesn't have the opposite effect it should and instead of being a good thing just reaffirms to the big third parties that they were right in not supporting Wii U. I ultimately can't really blame the third parties though, because Nintendo basically stacked all the decks against this console from the get-go.
@-DEMISE- "So tell me, how am I supposed to defend something that I don't know a single detail about?"
You're not, and neither am I. We are not in some court of law or whatever. So shut the **** about the fact that I can't prove matter-of-factly that Nintendo is getting a cut.
I do not have to prove my assertions in your home made court of law. I have made my assertion in an informal/casual manner, stating clearly from the very first post that it may not be 100% the case ("almost certainly" is not "absolutely and factually what happened"), and my complaints/issues are simply based on my assertion that this is likely what happened, especially given the previous examples of similar situations where Nintendo has made copyright claims (the whole YouTube monetisation debacle being a great example).
I say it's perfectly reasonable of me to make the assertion I made given the bits of information we do have plus all the prior history of Nintendo making copyright claims and said issues being resolved by it receiving some kind of financial payment(s). But, you're the one that keeps acting like nothing I say is valid unless some kind of legal evidence is provided to back up my assertion. So, I say to you, prove Nintendo didn't take a cut and I'll stop making those assertions. Because, I don't give a flying **** if you think I somehow need to prove in your home made court of law that Nintendo has taken some money before making any casual/informal assertions or claims against it, but you somehow think factual evidence is required here for me to even suggest such things.
So again I say, show me actual evidence/proof that I am guilty of making false accusations against Nintendo and I'll stop making them.
Until then. . . .
PS. Just for the record: I went through a two year long legal battle with Warner Bros regarding a Trademark dispute a won. And I handled all the legal stuff entirely by myself. So, I too know about about the laws around all this crap, including Copyright law. I say that much of what @happylittlepigs said above is perfectly legit, and is exactly the kind of stuff I'd be arguing if I were Bitmap books vs Nintendo in this case.
@happylittlepigs Great analysis of the whole Fair Use stuff imo.
Wrong about the "innocent until proven guilty thing", because I'm not in a court of law and I've not made any absolute, factual/legal, or formal claims against Nintendo that require proof.
I simply said this is ALMOST certainly what happened. I would say, however, that prior example, and the very fact that we know it was Nintendo who brought the copyright claim against these guys in the first place, gives me enough reason to make the accusations I made in the casual/informal manner I made them. Doesn't mean that what I suggest happened is 100% what actually happened—and I've never made any claim otherwise—but it's enough that I am perfectly reasonably entitled to make such an informal/casual assertion.
However, I was the one that did the asking for any evidence that actually disputes my own claims—no one was asking for legal proof of what Nintendo did or did not do prior to this—so the burden of proving my assertions false, which was basically the assertion made by @-DEMISE- on me, was automatically put on him once I specifically asked him to prove I'm making false assertions.
He's the one basically accusing me of false accusations, and I'm the one asking him to prove it; the burden of proof now lies on him to prove I am making false accusations.
If, however, Nintendo wishes me to backup my assertions regarding its actions—let it ask me to do so. . . .
@happylittlepigs Hey, I agree with most of what you say.
But, I still think we have to be very careful as a society, and as citizens of said society, what we start to accept as being the following under law and punishable by the law:
"threatening violence against someone is totally illegal."
Personally, I don't think we should simply count every single time someone posts a message online saying something remotely along the lines of "I'm going to kill you", in one form or another, as being automatically illegal, and certainly not just because the mass media and "social" media interpretation of some law has supposedly told us all how to group-think about this kind of thing. Sometimes we need to actually question these laws and specifically how and when they are being enforced, because the punishments are pretty frikin' severe.
So, that's more the point I'm getting at here.
I do not disagree that there is a law that says it is illegal to incite violence or make death threats. Nor do I think there shouldn't be such a law. I do, however, say we're starting to see that law be somewhat abused, to the point that we've now reached a situation where it's being used to stop almost any single written threat of violence whatsoever, even when sometimes it could be very convincingly argued that it really was not a serious/real threat at all, and instead was just some human being venting a bit of frustration. It's getting to a point of social conditioning—cleansing of the mouth as it were—being severely enforced by law.
If I am angry a Nintendo for whatever reason, I should be allowed to post some stupid comment online saying "I'm gonna kill all you gits for doing that!" in some idiotic rage where I clearly do not actually mean those words in the slightest, especially where I'm clearly just venting frustration, and it was obviously most effective to say some really hateful words and really hammer the point home that I'm majorly eff'd-off about it. Doesn't mean it wasn't stupid to act like that and say those things, but that notion of being an idiot and saying something stupid and inappropriate really should be every human being's God given right.
Using law to stop people committing crimes is not the same as using law to stop any form of negative human expression, even if we really don't like said expression—and I think we all just need to be aware of that at all times, and not allow these people to silence all forms of human behaviour that doesn't fall in line with some kind of oppressive Orwellian society.
The guys in the article above, who both made death threats and showed some evidence that they were indeed intending to follow through with those threats: They're obviously in line for some kind of legal punishment, within reason.
The guy who just posted a couple of silly raging messages, that were obviously crossing the line a bit: He should probably just have the police visit him, get a warning, maybe spend a day in the cells, and possibly have to pay a small fine (like $50 or something) just to hammer the point home.
Can you see the difference here, between reasonable and fair punishment that fits the crime and something that's genuinely far more insidious and worrying?
@Tempestryke Yeah, in the case of the two guys mentioned in the article above, it was crossing a line just on the face of it. Saying you're going to shoot and kill teens at a games tournament or whatever, and then also posting images of you actually standing there with the guns with which you could commit such a crime (and also already having tickets to the event too, as I recall); that obviously needs to be dealt with. I totally get that. And, I'd say the punishment for these guys probably wasn't too out of line—but still kinda was, if I'm being honest.
The other example, however, the one I mentioned above about the guy who simply sent a message or two to Blizzard implying he was gonna do some bad stuff (and that's basically all); and then him now facing potentially facing five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000—that's just beyond mental imo.
To me, hearing stuff like that is almost as if we're living on planet Cuckoo, or trapped in George Orwell's 1984.
@-DEMISE- Well, I tell you what: Show me that Nintendo isn't in the wrong here. . . .
And, I don't mean just you believing it has to be in the right, just because. That's just you doing the exact same thing as you're accusing me of doing, simply on the other side of the argument.
So, show me Nintendo is in fact the good guy and not the bad guy in this particular case. . . .
Do that, and I'll apologise for going so hard on it this time.
@sunrisensoul So, literally, he sent them a couple of messages with some threatening text content in them. I've not said he didn't do as much; I'm saying I 1000% do not believe that is potentially 5 years in prison and $250,000 fine material—not on any remotely sane planet.
99.9% of people are sheep; it's not even debatable at this point. The evidence is overwhelming; just look at how quickly the "social" masses jump on board whatever junk is currently trending on Facebook or Twitter and the like, especially if it's something that allows them to be part of a righteous lynch mob to punish the sinners of the world. . . . Them not knowing they are sheep does not change the fact they are sheep; it just makes the situation even more dangerous for all of us, because we're all literally walking into it blind, and worse, most of us are pretty brainwashed into a very dangerous way of thinking and acting too.
If you think it's "tin-hatish", that is only because you are patently unaware of anything other than the total surface level stuff that's going on here, the stuff that is visible in mass media and on "social" media sites, most of which is geared toward one group way of thinking and acting (even when it's clearly not in our best interests), which goes exactly to the problem I'm talking about.
And, no; just not talking about it because it makes us all feel uncomfortable goes right to the root-cause of why all this stuff is happening—because we're all too lazy, scared, ignorant, sheepish, whatever, to say or do anything other than exactly what we're "supposed" to. We're just brushing it under the carpet and hoping we don't get into trouble ourselves, hoping we don't get noticed, and that is not the solution here.
We need to start making the real problems in our society more visible, not the just the stuff the corporation-owned and controlled "news" media and the stupid "social" media would like us to focus on, like all that "terrorism" and "racism" and "sexism" out there that is clearly at the root of what is tearing our society apart, and clearly that's why most of us feel trapped and oppressed most of the time. It couldn't possibly be because of things like a society built around capitalism, debt, tax, inflation, greed, selfishness, fear, making the rich ever more rich and the poor ever poorer, controlling the masses, silencing the outliers, and slowly but surely taking away more of our basic rights, freedoms, and liberties, while the rich get ever more rich and ever more powerful, etc.
Here's two short YouTube clips I think everyone should watch; they get right to the heart of it all:
Please, do actually watch them. They're both very entertaining and educational at the same time, and they strike right at the real truth of this modern and so called "civilised" society we all "live" in.
I want you to understand something: I'm not your enemy here; I'm just taking a stand for people like you, me, and all of us.
@Ogbert Did you recognise them as balls in silhouette (or indeed "orbs")?
Also, for the record, I never said ALL the Gen 1 Pokemon had great silhouettes.
And, Psyduck is a more appealing design than many of the new Pokemon, imo. You put him alongside all the other latest Pokemon we've seen from Sun & Moon in front of the average kid, and I'm confident many of them will pick him as their fav. And his iconic and instantly recognisable pose—which goes entirely to my point, by the way—is part of his character design; you can't just delete core aspects of the character design to support your argument.
Psyduck is the epitome of simple, cool, fun, and appealing character design, imo. I mean, his name and design tell you pretty much everything you need to know right there: He's a duck (although actually a platypus ) that's either psychic or psychotic, or both (probably both, considering he's a platypus that's called/treated as a duck, and he does indeed have psychic powers).
And, when you see him in action, he's basically exactly as you'd imagine him to be:
And, if you compare something even as simple as just the logo in this game and one of the modern Sonic logos, you can see why the modern Sonic games simply leave me cold for the most part, whereas the older games actually had/have some soul to them and leave me feeling all warm and fuzzy inside:
One leaves me with a smile, and the other leaves me kinda cold.
@sunrisensoul None of that is an excuse/reason to allow more and more of all of our basic freedoms and liberties to be eroded away under the guise of protecting us from some "potential" crime.
"The threat he made was much more serious than that though. "
No, it was not. It was him blabbing "I'm maybe going to come up there and visit you with a gun, blah, blah, blah."
Him showing you a pic of him holding said gun would be "much more serious than that though", like those kids did in the actual example in the article above (they showed images of actual guns in their car and then travelled to the actual show too, as I recall); that was way more serious than the other guy just spouting off some threatening sounding words.
Basically, you guys simply will not see the problem here until it's too late. Ironically, which is how the likes of the government and the police are brainwashing the masses into allowing them to enact this type of pre-crime regime, under some implied threat; and you all jump the gun to support them in stopping that stuff. Except, unlike some implied threat, what these people who continue to distort and abuse all these laws are doing is actually real and right there in front of all of our faces too. But, that you can't see. Just trust me (or don't) when I say that the real threat here, to all of us, is ultimately not some guys shooting off their mouths online.
It's just like the whole "terrorism" thing, but being played out ever so slightly differently—yet every bit as insidious and ultimately more detrimental to all of us than anything any terrorists have ever done in the history of humankind.
These people, along with a sheepish "social" media "guided" masses, are getting better and better at setting things up so we'll all willingly and gladly shackle our own chains, while laughably talking about how bad things like slavery and oppression are and that we're glad we got rid of that kind of stuff.
@-DEMISE- No, I'm literally saying that in certain situations it is 100% legal and with their rights for these people to make money using some material that is part of Nintendo's copyright, totally and utterly irrespective of it being Nintendo's copyright—that's basically the exact purpose of whole Fair Use law I've now mentioned multiple times. And, I'm saying if they are doing this stuff within the law, then it is actually illegal for Nintendo to break that law and claim money and whatever else from them. And, I've never once said that this is what has happened matter of fact; I've simply said that it's more than likely this is what has happened here, especially given the recent history of Nintendo going after everyone that even sniffs its copyright these days.
You just need to get it through your head that it's you who's clearly interpreting what I'm saying incorrectly, not me interpreting the law incorrectly.
@sunrisensoul The main issue I take is that it's not an actual crime. Or, at least, it really should not be until it is confirmed as anything more than some idiot just trying to act tough and threatening online; much like a school bully may say he's going to kill you if he catches you.
If they can confirm beyond a reasonable doubt that what this guy said was likely a genuine/serious threat—maybe he has that gun he spoke of, or maybe he has a history of violent behaviour, maybe he's been charged with a similar crime before—then it's likely to be a genuine/serious threat, and then you can treat it as a crime because his words are far more likely a genuine precursor to intended violence.
But, I could say online right now that I'm going to kill you because you hate a game I love. That does not make it true, or any real kind of threat, and it does not warrant any legal intervention/action whatsoever. It would be a total and utter violation of my basic human freedoms and totally and utterly oppressive as far as I'm concerned if someone should take some kind legal against me for simply saying something like this in the heat of the moment. And that's the line we are willy nilly skipping between here.
He's just a random and flawed human being, so he doesn't have to execute some exact measures to make sure he's not breaking any very specific laws (it's his God given and immutable right to be flawed); the guys on the other side, however, the police and the lawyers and such, all have a very serious responsibility, both legal and moral, which goes to the heart of human liberty.
I think this line is being pushed further than further back, and I think that is ultimately far, far, far more dangerous than anything this guy said. And I think that's what all you guys need to be talking about more here, rather than congratulating the system for potentially putting a perfectly sane human being behind bars and whatever else.
@sunrisensoul And how exactly did you determine a warning from the police or whatever wouldn't be enough?
I feel he should get punished too, in a way that's reasonable and that fits his "crime". He made a serious sounding threat; he should maybe spend a day in the cells to teach him a lesson and have his name and details taken down so he knows they're watching him. Maybe he could even get a $50 fine too, or something like that. That kind of thing would be reasonable-ish enough to me here.
But this is just beyond absurd (potentially 5 years in jail and up to a $250,000 fine), and I REALLY think any sane person can feel that in their heart and soul, even if their actual brain has been totally programmed/conditioned by the media and mass "social" media to think otherwise.
As Charles Chaplin so eloquently put it, "You are not machines . . . you are men!":
@FiveDigitLP Yeah, in this case these guys had guns and stuff, so they definitely needed to be apprehended and some kind of action taken. The other guy though, he just made some written/verbal threats, and there's a chance he could see five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 for that. It's mind boggling and terrifying to me just on the face of it.
Did you see that similar incident recently where some dude might be facing 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for simply making a threat (not actually doing anything, just writing/saying some threatening words)?
"Ceblua faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine."—for literally doing nothing other than saying something that some people didn't like.
Warn him, sure, but five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Get the total and utter **** out of here!
It's utterly terrifying to me that precrime really does exist now (more so than anything that guy said, by far):
We are no longer free at all, if we ever even were.
Anyone saying we need to "lock these people up" or whatever; you guys are part of the problem. We need to lock up criminals, not people who haven't committed any crime whatsoever, other than being douches.
And, to be clear, there's obviously ways we can and should prevent crimes from happening in the first place too, especially potentially serious crimes—but not this!
Because, if we keep going down this path, soon they'll be locking people like me up for calling someone a douche, and maybe some of you guys too at some point if you even remotely step out of line.
We have some very big problems in this world, and some random guys making written/verbal threats online are not at the root cause of them—not even remotely close.
@HeroOfTime32 Exactly: You have an MBA and you are a licensed and practicing E.I. in Civil Engineering . . . but you don't know any better. I couldn't have said it better myself. lol
@HeroOfTime32 Zero of the solutions I offer are far-fetched; they just reduce Nintendo's profits a little and give the end consumer a bit more bang for their bucks. You just don't know any better.
"Personally, I don't think there will be other "mini consoles", i.e. - SNES MINI/N64 MINI/ETC. At least not for a longgg time."
And this total ignorance shows just how blinded you are, imo.
There will almost certainly be more Nintendo "mini" systems in the future. I'd put a lot of money on there being a SNES Classic Edition (probably sooner rather than later), and likely even more iterations of the NES Classic Edition too (just like Sega has done for the last few years with its own Genesis Classic Game Console's). Especially if the NES Classic Edition sells a few millions units, which I think it's now looking like it just might.
The exact timing . . . who knows; maybe it will just be a yearly thing, or maybe it will be to coincide with a kind of 30 year anniversary of each of the systems or something—but I'll not be shocked one bit when I see the SNES Classic Edition, or if I see new NES Classic Editions in the near future.
@HeroOfTime32 Personally, I think Nintendo rips us off way more often than necessary. The whole Virtual Console library is a perfect example: These games are just vastly overpriced for what they are, imo. And, it often just gives us the bare minimum necessary for our buck too, as far as I'm concerned; just like it's doing with the NES Classic Edition.
@kingc8 Well, that's actually true. But, Nintendo certainly only cared about the fact that the consumers thought they were playing with real power, as opposed to it actually technically being the most powerful system at the time. It knew power was an important selling point as most people associated more power with better games, and, on a technical level at least, they weren't wrong. Nintendo totally played on that fact. It can't, however, even pretend this with the likes of Wii and Wii U. lol
You know, having read the original article content again . . .
It would be very interesting if it turns out that all Nintendo really did was ask them to change a few aspects that made the original design look a bit too official, like alter the title on the cover slightly and adding clear indications to the book and Kickstarter that it is an unofficial creation only. That would do two things:
1. It would make me look like a bit of a douche for getting all up in Nintendo's grill when it actually only asked for a few small changes but ultimately left these guys to make their book as originally intended without any notion of giving Nintendo a share of the profits. Although, it would surely be a bit of an overreaction for Kickstarter to totally remove the project if that were the case, if it were just an issue of requiring a few small visual alterations (the project images and text could just be updated in realtime to reflect the requested changes).
2. It would totally and utterly backup my assertion that Nintendo really doesn't have a legal claim of copyright infringement just because you happen to use a bunch of screen grabs and a few box images in a 240+ page compendium where it's entire purpose is to be about celebrating its work and legacy. Otherwise, if there was a clear copyright violation (as Nintendo saw it), it absolutely would have asserted its claim (see "Nintendo YouTube monetisation" if you need an example of this).
Something to think about. . . .
But, I'd still be very surprised here if Nintendo wasn't claiming proper/full copyright infringement and hasn't wangled a percentage of the money out of these guys, just like it did with all the YouTube guys posting Let's Plays of its games. And, if that is indeed the case, I stick with my original assertion of Nintendo being a douche that's stretching and likely breaking the limits of Copyright law and crapping all over the Fair Use law, as I understand these things.
So, the real truth here is that the NES Classic Edition isn't actually £50 in the UK at all; it's £50 plus whatever a power adapter for the system costs. It's a hidden cost right there for UK consumers. And, the fact the Nintendo fanboys aren't calling Nintendo out for this kind of sneaky crap is exactly why it continues to take the ***.
Why are more people not calling Nintendo out for this crap!
@rjc-32 Just because Nintendo is a business and out to make money off its properties, that doesn't automatically mean it always has to rip us off in doing so and leave us somewhat unsatisfied (as far as this end consumer sees it).
Some of you might think it's a steal that we are getting this NES Classic Edition for £50 in the UK, with 30 games, no ability to add more games or even use old NES carts, wired only controllers, and even without a power adapter. I don't think that's a steal; I think that's around the bare minimum we could have expected for this price.
I think if Nintendo were a real smart company it would be satisfying both elements of the following mantra rather than only one:
"Satisfy the customer, at a profit." — Me, many years ago at high school during a Young Enterprise business class
£50 in the UK, with say 80-100 games (they are basically free to include at this point), possibly the ability to use old NES carts too (but it's not really necessary if enough games are actually included by default), controllers than can be used either wired or wirelessly, and with an actual power adapter—that would both satisfy me and make Nintendo money at the same time.
Again, it always seems to come down to this: I fight for what's best for you guys . . . and you guys fight for what's best for the corporations.
@cwong15 I think we all know the idea is for companies to make money off its properties. Clarifying that Nintendo is out to make money here is beyond redundant.
I'm saying that putting these games on this system at this point in time is basically free for Nintendo, be it 30 games or 300, and therefore I think it would just make sense, in multiple ways, to include more in there by default:
1. Because you can't add/download any more games after the fact.
2. You can't use any original NES carts.
3. It means people don't have to worry about Nintendo fleecing them a few months down the line with another $60 dollar NES mini 2 that has 30 other games, when, unless these people are mentally ********, they should be aware that they really shouldn't and don't need two pieces of the same $60 hardware just to get another 30 digital versions of 30 year old NES games when the entire NES library can literally fit on a 256MB memory card.
4. It would just make the whole thing a more attractive value proposition, and it ultimately doesn't cost Nintendo anything to add more games. So, how about actually really satisfying the customer for once, rather than just doing enough to make sure only the most blindly loyal fanboys can defend your utter greediness? How about entertaining this crazy notion of totally blowing people out the water and going above and beyond their lowest expectations, for once. . . .
@dronesplitter And I say you are wrong. No one has shown me a clear example of where any content we've seen from this book thus far is reaching beyond the limits of Fair Use law.
This doesn't mean I can't be wrong; I'd simply challenge Nintendo's claim in this particular case, any day of the week.
And, even if Nintendo is in the right, it can only be on a couple of minor elements imo (certainly almost none of the stuff we've seen thus far could even qualify imo), which I'd personally rather remove before giving Nintendo a dime (if I were these guys).
@-DEMISE- Again, that is precisely why the Fair Use law exists. We all know Nintendo owns the original artwork and has the copyright on it; that is not the argument I'm making here. My argument is that Nintendo is the one stretching/abusing the limits of said law for a quick and easy buck, not the other guys.
I take issue with any company any time I believe it's abusing these laws to make easy make money off of people that are actually following the law, from what I can see at least, and legally shouldn't have to give Nintendo any money for doing so. And the fact they are using some of Nintendo's art in images is ultimately irrelevant to the point if they are doing so within the Fair Use law.
But, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I've not said it isn't possible that Nintendo is totally within the law here and the other guys must therefore matter-of-fact be breaking the law as a result (Nintendo simply cannot have a legal claim of any copyright infringement unless these guys are literally breaking the law); I have, however, said I don't think these guys are breaking the law, and I think Nintendo is the one abusing the law here.
I don't know for a fact that Nintendo is taking a cut of the profits, and I never claimed I did know for a fact. But, I'd suggest it's almost a certainty. That's usually what "have come to some agreement" means in situations like this.
@dronesplitter I'd say it's in the wrong when it knows fine well it's taking the ****. Nintendo knows when a company is properly violating its copyright and when it's not—and it can deduce this at a quick glance of the material most of the time. And, it if chooses to go after all these companies that I'd say really aren't violating its copyright, then I say it's in the wrong, and it's just doing what it's doing to try and make a quick and easy buck rather than because it has any legitimate claim half the time. I'd say that's likely the case in this case. That's my take on it.
@-DEMISE- Well, that's probably exactly what Nintendo said. It's a fine line though, and each of those pages does contain at least some text and content about the game, so it's not just an image reprinted with no editorial content to go alongside it. It just happens that these images are large, so it creates the illusion that somehow there's more copyrighted material there or something. But, imagine if they'd literally only been a typical screenshot size as seen in the Mean Machines example (and only partial screenshots at that), with exactly the same text as in the compendium right now. . . .
And, let's just be clear here: It's a partial image of a single screenshot taken from an entire video game that is comprised of literally hundreds of thousands or even millions of said screens, which has been scaled way beyond normal display size and resolution to cover two pages in a magazine. It's not like these guys have taken the entire game content and posted it right there on the page, or even close to it. With the game covers, sure. they are almost literally just copied and pasted, but surely it should be acceptable to include a handful of those too in among a book that is at least a couple of hundred of pages long (likely more since all the stretch goals have been blown away).
Like I said, I don't think these guys are doing anything untoward; I just think Nintendo is pushing its luck and the limits of the law in order to make another quick and easy buck. But, I guess the same could arguably be argued about the guys making the magazine too—not by me though.
@retro_player_22 They won't. They already know this thing is going to sell as is. Any things that could make it even better, they basically don't care about at this point. It's a cheap and easy to mass produce money spinner.
@Project_Dolphin This conversation is over, but you go ahead and keep convincing yourself, and maybe a few other weak minded people, that you're not clueless in this particular regard.
Comments 6,304
Re: Talking Point: Free and Early Access Downloads Like Metroid Prime: Blast Ball Make a Lot of Sense
@Dr_Corndog I'm from the UK and I don't remember that.
Re: Video: Learn a Little More About the History of Super NES
Watched this the other day and enjoyed it. Added it to my favourites list.
Re: Talking Point: Free and Early Access Downloads Like Metroid Prime: Blast Ball Make a Lot of Sense
@PanurgeJr I'm sure on average it hurts the sale of average games.
Re: Two Men Sentenced Over 2015 Pokémon World Championships Gun Threats
@PaperMario64 Yes
Re: Talking Point: Free and Early Access Downloads Like Metroid Prime: Blast Ball Make a Lot of Sense
Demos, basically, have made sense since the days of shareware (as long as you've got a decent game worth demoing in the first place, obviously). For example, releasing the original Doom as shareware initially was a master stroke of genius. It's just strange that Nintendo is still trying to figure this out.
Re: Darksiders is Coming to Wii U
As much as I wish Wii U was getting all the games possible, I actually expect this game won't sell particularly on the system. It's just the kind of game I imagine might have done well enough at the start of the system's life and will possibly do pretty well on the other current-gen consoles, but now it seems almost pointless putting it on Wii U. I am, however, happy to see another bigger-ish third party title on there at least. I just hope it doesn't have the opposite effect it should and instead of being a good thing just reaffirms to the big third parties that they were right in not supporting Wii U. I ultimately can't really blame the third parties though, because Nintendo basically stacked all the decks against this console from the get-go.
Re: NES Visual Compendium Dispute Comes To An End, Kickstarter Resumes For Final 24 Hours
@-DEMISE- "So tell me, how am I supposed to defend something that I don't know a single detail about?"
You're not, and neither am I. We are not in some court of law or whatever. So shut the **** about the fact that I can't prove matter-of-factly that Nintendo is getting a cut.
I do not have to prove my assertions in your home made court of law. I have made my assertion in an informal/casual manner, stating clearly from the very first post that it may not be 100% the case ("almost certainly" is not "absolutely and factually what happened"), and my complaints/issues are simply based on my assertion that this is likely what happened, especially given the previous examples of similar situations where Nintendo has made copyright claims (the whole YouTube monetisation debacle being a great example).
I say it's perfectly reasonable of me to make the assertion I made given the bits of information we do have plus all the prior history of Nintendo making copyright claims and said issues being resolved by it receiving some kind of financial payment(s). But, you're the one that keeps acting like nothing I say is valid unless some kind of legal evidence is provided to back up my assertion. So, I say to you, prove Nintendo didn't take a cut and I'll stop making those assertions. Because, I don't give a flying **** if you think I somehow need to prove in your home made court of law that Nintendo has taken some money before making any casual/informal assertions or claims against it, but you somehow think factual evidence is required here for me to even suggest such things.
So again I say, show me actual evidence/proof that I am guilty of making false accusations against Nintendo and I'll stop making them.
Until then. . . .
PS. Just for the record: I went through a two year long legal battle with Warner Bros regarding a Trademark dispute a won. And I handled all the legal stuff entirely by myself. So, I too know about about the laws around all this crap, including Copyright law. I say that much of what @happylittlepigs said above is perfectly legit, and is exactly the kind of stuff I'd be arguing if I were Bitmap books vs Nintendo in this case.
Re: NES Visual Compendium Dispute Comes To An End, Kickstarter Resumes For Final 24 Hours
@happylittlepigs Great analysis of the whole Fair Use stuff imo.
Wrong about the "innocent until proven guilty thing", because I'm not in a court of law and I've not made any absolute, factual/legal, or formal claims against Nintendo that require proof.
I simply said this is ALMOST certainly what happened. I would say, however, that prior example, and the very fact that we know it was Nintendo who brought the copyright claim against these guys in the first place, gives me enough reason to make the accusations I made in the casual/informal manner I made them. Doesn't mean that what I suggest happened is 100% what actually happened—and I've never made any claim otherwise—but it's enough that I am perfectly reasonably entitled to make such an informal/casual assertion.
However, I was the one that did the asking for any evidence that actually disputes my own claims—no one was asking for legal proof of what Nintendo did or did not do prior to this—so the burden of proving my assertions false, which was basically the assertion made by @-DEMISE- on me, was automatically put on him once I specifically asked him to prove I'm making false assertions.
He's the one basically accusing me of false accusations, and I'm the one asking him to prove it; the burden of proof now lies on him to prove I am making false accusations.
If, however, Nintendo wishes me to backup my assertions regarding its actions—let it ask me to do so. . . .
Re: Two Men Sentenced Over 2015 Pokémon World Championships Gun Threats
@happylittlepigs Hey, I agree with most of what you say.
But, I still think we have to be very careful as a society, and as citizens of said society, what we start to accept as being the following under law and punishable by the law:
"threatening violence against someone is totally illegal."
Personally, I don't think we should simply count every single time someone posts a message online saying something remotely along the lines of "I'm going to kill you", in one form or another, as being automatically illegal, and certainly not just because the mass media and "social" media interpretation of some law has supposedly told us all how to group-think about this kind of thing. Sometimes we need to actually question these laws and specifically how and when they are being enforced, because the punishments are pretty frikin' severe.
So, that's more the point I'm getting at here.
I do not disagree that there is a law that says it is illegal to incite violence or make death threats. Nor do I think there shouldn't be such a law. I do, however, say we're starting to see that law be somewhat abused, to the point that we've now reached a situation where it's being used to stop almost any single written threat of violence whatsoever, even when sometimes it could be very convincingly argued that it really was not a serious/real threat at all, and instead was just some human being venting a bit of frustration. It's getting to a point of social conditioning—cleansing of the mouth as it were—being severely enforced by law.
If I am angry a Nintendo for whatever reason, I should be allowed to post some stupid comment online saying "I'm gonna kill all you gits for doing that!" in some idiotic rage where I clearly do not actually mean those words in the slightest, especially where I'm clearly just venting frustration, and it was obviously most effective to say some really hateful words and really hammer the point home that I'm majorly eff'd-off about it. Doesn't mean it wasn't stupid to act like that and say those things, but that notion of being an idiot and saying something stupid and inappropriate really should be every human being's God given right.
Using law to stop people committing crimes is not the same as using law to stop any form of negative human expression, even if we really don't like said expression—and I think we all just need to be aware of that at all times, and not allow these people to silence all forms of human behaviour that doesn't fall in line with some kind of oppressive Orwellian society.
The guys in the article above, who both made death threats and showed some evidence that they were indeed intending to follow through with those threats: They're obviously in line for some kind of legal punishment, within reason.
The guy who just posted a couple of silly raging messages, that were obviously crossing the line a bit: He should probably just have the police visit him, get a warning, maybe spend a day in the cells, and possibly have to pay a small fine (like $50 or something) just to hammer the point home.
Can you see the difference here, between reasonable and fair punishment that fits the crime and something that's genuinely far more insidious and worrying?
Re: Ubisoft CEO Says Nintendo NX Will Help Grow The Industry And Pull In Casual Players
@Mahe Well that's good at least.
Re: Two Men Sentenced Over 2015 Pokémon World Championships Gun Threats
@Tempestryke Yeah, in the case of the two guys mentioned in the article above, it was crossing a line just on the face of it. Saying you're going to shoot and kill teens at a games tournament or whatever, and then also posting images of you actually standing there with the guns with which you could commit such a crime (and also already having tickets to the event too, as I recall); that obviously needs to be dealt with. I totally get that. And, I'd say the punishment for these guys probably wasn't too out of line—but still kinda was, if I'm being honest.
The other example, however, the one I mentioned above about the guy who simply sent a message or two to Blizzard implying he was gonna do some bad stuff (and that's basically all); and then him now facing potentially facing five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000—that's just beyond mental imo.
To me, hearing stuff like that is almost as if we're living on planet Cuckoo, or trapped in George Orwell's 1984.
Re: NES Visual Compendium Dispute Comes To An End, Kickstarter Resumes For Final 24 Hours
@-DEMISE- Well, I tell you what: Show me that Nintendo isn't in the wrong here. . . .
And, I don't mean just you believing it has to be in the right, just because. That's just you doing the exact same thing as you're accusing me of doing, simply on the other side of the argument.
So, show me Nintendo is in fact the good guy and not the bad guy in this particular case. . . .
Do that, and I'll apologise for going so hard on it this time.
Re: Two Men Sentenced Over 2015 Pokémon World Championships Gun Threats
@sunrisensoul So, literally, he sent them a couple of messages with some threatening text content in them. I've not said he didn't do as much; I'm saying I 1000% do not believe that is potentially 5 years in prison and $250,000 fine material—not on any remotely sane planet.
99.9% of people are sheep; it's not even debatable at this point. The evidence is overwhelming; just look at how quickly the "social" masses jump on board whatever junk is currently trending on Facebook or Twitter and the like, especially if it's something that allows them to be part of a righteous lynch mob to punish the sinners of the world. . . . Them not knowing they are sheep does not change the fact they are sheep; it just makes the situation even more dangerous for all of us, because we're all literally walking into it blind, and worse, most of us are pretty brainwashed into a very dangerous way of thinking and acting too.
If you think it's "tin-hatish", that is only because you are patently unaware of anything other than the total surface level stuff that's going on here, the stuff that is visible in mass media and on "social" media sites, most of which is geared toward one group way of thinking and acting (even when it's clearly not in our best interests), which goes exactly to the problem I'm talking about.
And, no; just not talking about it because it makes us all feel uncomfortable goes right to the root-cause of why all this stuff is happening—because we're all too lazy, scared, ignorant, sheepish, whatever, to say or do anything other than exactly what we're "supposed" to. We're just brushing it under the carpet and hoping we don't get into trouble ourselves, hoping we don't get noticed, and that is not the solution here.
We need to start making the real problems in our society more visible, not the just the stuff the corporation-owned and controlled "news" media and the stupid "social" media would like us to focus on, like all that "terrorism" and "racism" and "sexism" out there that is clearly at the root of what is tearing our society apart, and clearly that's why most of us feel trapped and oppressed most of the time. It couldn't possibly be because of things like a society built around capitalism, debt, tax, inflation, greed, selfishness, fear, making the rich ever more rich and the poor ever poorer, controlling the masses, silencing the outliers, and slowly but surely taking away more of our basic rights, freedoms, and liberties, while the rich get ever more rich and ever more powerful, etc.
Here's two short YouTube clips I think everyone should watch; they get right to the heart of it all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuBe93FMiJc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo
Please, do actually watch them. They're both very entertaining and educational at the same time, and they strike right at the real truth of this modern and so called "civilised" society we all "live" in.
I want you to understand something: I'm not your enemy here; I'm just taking a stand for people like you, me, and all of us.
Re: Gallery: A Closer Look at the Latest Additions to Pokémon Sun and Moon
@Ogbert Did you recognise them as balls in silhouette (or indeed "orbs")?
Also, for the record, I never said ALL the Gen 1 Pokemon had great silhouettes.
And, Psyduck is a more appealing design than many of the new Pokemon, imo. You put him alongside all the other latest Pokemon we've seen from Sun & Moon in front of the average kid, and I'm confident many of them will pick him as their fav. And his iconic and instantly recognisable pose—which goes entirely to my point, by the way—is part of his character design; you can't just delete core aspects of the character design to support your argument.
Psyduck is the epitome of simple, cool, fun, and appealing character design, imo. I mean, his name and design tell you pretty much everything you need to know right there: He's a duck (although actually a platypus ) that's either psychic or psychotic, or both (probably both, considering he's a platypus that's called/treated as a duck, and he does indeed have psychic powers).
And, when you see him in action, he's basically exactly as you'd imagine him to be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDH0au9qRL8
To be clear, there are quite a few good designs among the new Pokemon too. I'm just shocked at how many fugly ones there are as well, as I see them.
Re: Sonic Mania Announced for Spring 2017, But No Nintendo Platforms Are Included
PS. What possible good reason could there be for this not coming to both Wii U and NX?
Re: Sonic Mania Announced for Spring 2017, But No Nintendo Platforms Are Included
Now this I can get behind.
And, if you compare something even as simple as just the logo in this game and one of the modern Sonic logos, you can see why the modern Sonic games simply leave me cold for the most part, whereas the older games actually had/have some soul to them and leave me feeling all warm and fuzzy inside:
One leaves me with a smile, and the other leaves me kinda cold.
Re: Two Men Sentenced Over 2015 Pokémon World Championships Gun Threats
@sunrisensoul None of that is an excuse/reason to allow more and more of all of our basic freedoms and liberties to be eroded away under the guise of protecting us from some "potential" crime.
"The threat he made was much more serious than that though. "
No, it was not. It was him blabbing "I'm maybe going to come up there and visit you with a gun, blah, blah, blah."
Him showing you a pic of him holding said gun would be "much more serious than that though", like those kids did in the actual example in the article above (they showed images of actual guns in their car and then travelled to the actual show too, as I recall); that was way more serious than the other guy just spouting off some threatening sounding words.
Basically, you guys simply will not see the problem here until it's too late. Ironically, which is how the likes of the government and the police are brainwashing the masses into allowing them to enact this type of pre-crime regime, under some implied threat; and you all jump the gun to support them in stopping that stuff. Except, unlike some implied threat, what these people who continue to distort and abuse all these laws are doing is actually real and right there in front of all of our faces too. But, that you can't see. Just trust me (or don't) when I say that the real threat here, to all of us, is ultimately not some guys shooting off their mouths online.
It's just like the whole "terrorism" thing, but being played out ever so slightly differently—yet every bit as insidious and ultimately more detrimental to all of us than anything any terrorists have ever done in the history of humankind.
These people, along with a sheepish "social" media "guided" masses, are getting better and better at setting things up so we'll all willingly and gladly shackle our own chains, while laughably talking about how bad things like slavery and oppression are and that we're glad we got rid of that kind of stuff.
Re: NES Visual Compendium Dispute Comes To An End, Kickstarter Resumes For Final 24 Hours
@-DEMISE- No, I'm literally saying that in certain situations it is 100% legal and with their rights for these people to make money using some material that is part of Nintendo's copyright, totally and utterly irrespective of it being Nintendo's copyright—that's basically the exact purpose of whole Fair Use law I've now mentioned multiple times. And, I'm saying if they are doing this stuff within the law, then it is actually illegal for Nintendo to break that law and claim money and whatever else from them. And, I've never once said that this is what has happened matter of fact; I've simply said that it's more than likely this is what has happened here, especially given the recent history of Nintendo going after everyone that even sniffs its copyright these days.
You just need to get it through your head that it's you who's clearly interpreting what I'm saying incorrectly, not me interpreting the law incorrectly.
Re: Two Men Sentenced Over 2015 Pokémon World Championships Gun Threats
@sunrisensoul The main issue I take is that it's not an actual crime. Or, at least, it really should not be until it is confirmed as anything more than some idiot just trying to act tough and threatening online; much like a school bully may say he's going to kill you if he catches you.
If they can confirm beyond a reasonable doubt that what this guy said was likely a genuine/serious threat—maybe he has that gun he spoke of, or maybe he has a history of violent behaviour, maybe he's been charged with a similar crime before—then it's likely to be a genuine/serious threat, and then you can treat it as a crime because his words are far more likely a genuine precursor to intended violence.
But, I could say online right now that I'm going to kill you because you hate a game I love. That does not make it true, or any real kind of threat, and it does not warrant any legal intervention/action whatsoever. It would be a total and utter violation of my basic human freedoms and totally and utterly oppressive as far as I'm concerned if someone should take some kind legal against me for simply saying something like this in the heat of the moment. And that's the line we are willy nilly skipping between here.
He's just a random and flawed human being, so he doesn't have to execute some exact measures to make sure he's not breaking any very specific laws (it's his God given and immutable right to be flawed); the guys on the other side, however, the police and the lawyers and such, all have a very serious responsibility, both legal and moral, which goes to the heart of human liberty.
I think this line is being pushed further than further back, and I think that is ultimately far, far, far more dangerous than anything this guy said. And I think that's what all you guys need to be talking about more here, rather than congratulating the system for potentially putting a perfectly sane human being behind bars and whatever else.
Re: SurveyMonkey Intelligence Data Highlights Pokémon GO's US Performance Since the App's Peak
I expect it will spike again now that it's finally out in Japan, because it's surely gonna be huge there.
Re: Two Men Sentenced Over 2015 Pokémon World Championships Gun Threats
@sunrisensoul And how exactly did you determine a warning from the police or whatever wouldn't be enough?
I feel he should get punished too, in a way that's reasonable and that fits his "crime". He made a serious sounding threat; he should maybe spend a day in the cells to teach him a lesson and have his name and details taken down so he knows they're watching him. Maybe he could even get a $50 fine too, or something like that. That kind of thing would be reasonable-ish enough to me here.
But this is just beyond absurd (potentially 5 years in jail and up to a $250,000 fine), and I REALLY think any sane person can feel that in their heart and soul, even if their actual brain has been totally programmed/conditioned by the media and mass "social" media to think otherwise.
As Charles Chaplin so eloquently put it, "You are not machines . . . you are men!":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo
I only wish we all knew better.
Re: The Official Nintendo NES Classics Book Will Go Nicely With Your NES Mini
That was quick to happen.
I'll bet you the Bitmap version is better quality and stuff though. Those guys have real passion for what they're doing.
Interesting that there's zero shots of what it's like inside.
Re: Two Men Sentenced Over 2015 Pokémon World Championships Gun Threats
@FiveDigitLP Yeah, in this case these guys had guns and stuff, so they definitely needed to be apprehended and some kind of action taken. The other guy though, he just made some written/verbal threats, and there's a chance he could see five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 for that. It's mind boggling and terrifying to me just on the face of it.
Re: Two Men Sentenced Over 2015 Pokémon World Championships Gun Threats
Did you see that similar incident recently where some dude might be facing 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for simply making a threat (not actually doing anything, just writing/saying some threatening words)?
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/man-arrested-for-reportedly-making-violent-threats/1100-6442065/
"Ceblua faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine."—for literally doing nothing other than saying something that some people didn't like.
Warn him, sure, but five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Get the total and utter **** out of here!
It's utterly terrifying to me that precrime really does exist now (more so than anything that guy said, by far):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precrime
We are no longer free at all, if we ever even were.
Anyone saying we need to "lock these people up" or whatever; you guys are part of the problem. We need to lock up criminals, not people who haven't committed any crime whatsoever, other than being douches.
And, to be clear, there's obviously ways we can and should prevent crimes from happening in the first place too, especially potentially serious crimes—but not this!
Because, if we keep going down this path, soon they'll be locking people like me up for calling someone a douche, and maybe some of you guys too at some point if you even remotely step out of line.
We have some very big problems in this world, and some random guys making written/verbal threats online are not at the root cause of them—not even remotely close.
Re: Nintendo Entertainment System: NES Classic Edition Gets a Snazzy Trailer and Website
@ThanosReXXX I've not seen/read that rumour.
Yeah, I'd take that one with a pinch of salt for sure, but it would certainly be interesting if it were true.
Re: Bask in Nendoroid Goodness in This Celebratory Good Smile Company Video
That's a lot of figures.
Re: Nintendo Entertainment System: NES Classic Edition Gets a Snazzy Trailer and Website
@HeroOfTime32 You too, mate.
Re: Nintendo Entertainment System: NES Classic Edition Gets a Snazzy Trailer and Website
@HeroOfTime32 Exactly: You have an MBA and you are a licensed and practicing E.I. in Civil Engineering . . . but you don't know any better. I couldn't have said it better myself. lol
Re: Nintendo Entertainment System: NES Classic Edition Gets a Snazzy Trailer and Website
@HeroOfTime32 Zero of the solutions I offer are far-fetched; they just reduce Nintendo's profits a little and give the end consumer a bit more bang for their bucks. You just don't know any better.
"Personally, I don't think there will be other "mini consoles", i.e. - SNES MINI/N64 MINI/ETC. At least not for a longgg time."
And this total ignorance shows just how blinded you are, imo.
There will almost certainly be more Nintendo "mini" systems in the future. I'd put a lot of money on there being a SNES Classic Edition (probably sooner rather than later), and likely even more iterations of the NES Classic Edition too (just like Sega has done for the last few years with its own Genesis Classic Game Console's). Especially if the NES Classic Edition sells a few millions units, which I think it's now looking like it just might.
The exact timing . . . who knows; maybe it will just be a yearly thing, or maybe it will be to coincide with a kind of 30 year anniversary of each of the systems or something—but I'll not be shocked one bit when I see the SNES Classic Edition, or if I see new NES Classic Editions in the near future.
Re: Nintendo Entertainment System: NES Classic Edition Gets a Snazzy Trailer and Website
@HeroOfTime32 Personally, I think Nintendo rips us off way more often than necessary. The whole Virtual Console library is a perfect example: These games are just vastly overpriced for what they are, imo. And, it often just gives us the bare minimum necessary for our buck too, as far as I'm concerned; just like it's doing with the NES Classic Edition.
Re: Nintendo Entertainment System: NES Classic Edition Gets a Snazzy Trailer and Website
@kingc8 Well, that's actually true. But, Nintendo certainly only cared about the fact that the consumers thought they were playing with real power, as opposed to it actually technically being the most powerful system at the time. It knew power was an important selling point as most people associated more power with better games, and, on a technical level at least, they weren't wrong. Nintendo totally played on that fact. It can't, however, even pretend this with the likes of Wii and Wii U. lol
Re: NES Visual Compendium Dispute Comes To An End, Kickstarter Resumes For Final 24 Hours
You know, having read the original article content again . . .
It would be very interesting if it turns out that all Nintendo really did was ask them to change a few aspects that made the original design look a bit too official, like alter the title on the cover slightly and adding clear indications to the book and Kickstarter that it is an unofficial creation only. That would do two things:
1. It would make me look like a bit of a douche for getting all up in Nintendo's grill when it actually only asked for a few small changes but ultimately left these guys to make their book as originally intended without any notion of giving Nintendo a share of the profits. Although, it would surely be a bit of an overreaction for Kickstarter to totally remove the project if that were the case, if it were just an issue of requiring a few small visual alterations (the project images and text could just be updated in realtime to reflect the requested changes).
2. It would totally and utterly backup my assertion that Nintendo really doesn't have a legal claim of copyright infringement just because you happen to use a bunch of screen grabs and a few box images in a 240+ page compendium where it's entire purpose is to be about celebrating its work and legacy. Otherwise, if there was a clear copyright violation (as Nintendo saw it), it absolutely would have asserted its claim (see "Nintendo YouTube monetisation" if you need an example of this).
Something to think about. . . .
But, I'd still be very surprised here if Nintendo wasn't claiming proper/full copyright infringement and hasn't wangled a percentage of the money out of these guys, just like it did with all the YouTube guys posting Let's Plays of its games. And, if that is indeed the case, I stick with my original assertion of Nintendo being a douche that's stretching and likely breaking the limits of Copyright law and crapping all over the Fair Use law, as I understand these things.
Re: Pokémon GO Finally Arrives In Japan
I expect it's gonna be HUUUGE over there.
Re: Ubisoft CEO Says Nintendo NX Will Help Grow The Industry And Pull In Casual Players
@FlaygletheBagel Totally agree with you, on both points.
Re: Nintendo Entertainment System: NES Classic Edition Gets a Snazzy Trailer and Website
@Pj1 Yes, it probably will sell an official lead.
So, the real truth here is that the NES Classic Edition isn't actually £50 in the UK at all; it's £50 plus whatever a power adapter for the system costs. It's a hidden cost right there for UK consumers. And, the fact the Nintendo fanboys aren't calling Nintendo out for this kind of sneaky crap is exactly why it continues to take the ***.
Why are more people not calling Nintendo out for this crap!
Re: Nintendo Entertainment System: NES Classic Edition Gets a Snazzy Trailer and Website
@rjc-32 Just because Nintendo is a business and out to make money off its properties, that doesn't automatically mean it always has to rip us off in doing so and leave us somewhat unsatisfied (as far as this end consumer sees it).
Some of you might think it's a steal that we are getting this NES Classic Edition for £50 in the UK, with 30 games, no ability to add more games or even use old NES carts, wired only controllers, and even without a power adapter. I don't think that's a steal; I think that's around the bare minimum we could have expected for this price.
I think if Nintendo were a real smart company it would be satisfying both elements of the following mantra rather than only one:
"Satisfy the customer, at a profit." — Me, many years ago at high school during a Young Enterprise business class
£50 in the UK, with say 80-100 games (they are basically free to include at this point), possibly the ability to use old NES carts too (but it's not really necessary if enough games are actually included by default), controllers than can be used either wired or wirelessly, and with an actual power adapter—that would both satisfy me and make Nintendo money at the same time.
Again, it always seems to come down to this: I fight for what's best for you guys . . . and you guys fight for what's best for the corporations.
Re: Nintendo Entertainment System: NES Classic Edition Gets a Snazzy Trailer and Website
@cwong15 I think we all know the idea is for companies to make money off its properties. Clarifying that Nintendo is out to make money here is beyond redundant.
I'm saying that putting these games on this system at this point in time is basically free for Nintendo, be it 30 games or 300, and therefore I think it would just make sense, in multiple ways, to include more in there by default:
1. Because you can't add/download any more games after the fact.
2. You can't use any original NES carts.
3. It means people don't have to worry about Nintendo fleecing them a few months down the line with another $60 dollar NES mini 2 that has 30 other games, when, unless these people are mentally ********, they should be aware that they really shouldn't and don't need two pieces of the same $60 hardware just to get another 30 digital versions of 30 year old NES games when the entire NES library can literally fit on a 256MB memory card.
4. It would just make the whole thing a more attractive value proposition, and it ultimately doesn't cost Nintendo anything to add more games. So, how about actually really satisfying the customer for once, rather than just doing enough to make sure only the most blindly loyal fanboys can defend your utter greediness? How about entertaining this crazy notion of totally blowing people out the water and going above and beyond their lowest expectations, for once. . . .
Re: NES Visual Compendium Dispute Comes To An End, Kickstarter Resumes For Final 24 Hours
@dronesplitter And I say you are wrong. No one has shown me a clear example of where any content we've seen from this book thus far is reaching beyond the limits of Fair Use law.
This doesn't mean I can't be wrong; I'd simply challenge Nintendo's claim in this particular case, any day of the week.
And, even if Nintendo is in the right, it can only be on a couple of minor elements imo (certainly almost none of the stuff we've seen thus far could even qualify imo), which I'd personally rather remove before giving Nintendo a dime (if I were these guys).
Re: NES Visual Compendium Dispute Comes To An End, Kickstarter Resumes For Final 24 Hours
@-DEMISE- Again, that is precisely why the Fair Use law exists. We all know Nintendo owns the original artwork and has the copyright on it; that is not the argument I'm making here. My argument is that Nintendo is the one stretching/abusing the limits of said law for a quick and easy buck, not the other guys.
I take issue with any company any time I believe it's abusing these laws to make easy make money off of people that are actually following the law, from what I can see at least, and legally shouldn't have to give Nintendo any money for doing so. And the fact they are using some of Nintendo's art in images is ultimately irrelevant to the point if they are doing so within the Fair Use law.
But, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I've not said it isn't possible that Nintendo is totally within the law here and the other guys must therefore matter-of-fact be breaking the law as a result (Nintendo simply cannot have a legal claim of any copyright infringement unless these guys are literally breaking the law); I have, however, said I don't think these guys are breaking the law, and I think Nintendo is the one abusing the law here.
I don't know for a fact that Nintendo is taking a cut of the profits, and I never claimed I did know for a fact. But, I'd suggest it's almost a certainty. That's usually what "have come to some agreement" means in situations like this.
Re: NES Visual Compendium Dispute Comes To An End, Kickstarter Resumes For Final 24 Hours
@dronesplitter I'd say it's in the wrong when it knows fine well it's taking the ****. Nintendo knows when a company is properly violating its copyright and when it's not—and it can deduce this at a quick glance of the material most of the time. And, it if chooses to go after all these companies that I'd say really aren't violating its copyright, then I say it's in the wrong, and it's just doing what it's doing to try and make a quick and easy buck rather than because it has any legitimate claim half the time. I'd say that's likely the case in this case. That's my take on it.
Re: Hands On: Squashing Space Pirates in Metroid Prime: Federation Force
@Wolfgabe lol
Re: NES Visual Compendium Dispute Comes To An End, Kickstarter Resumes For Final 24 Hours
@LemonSlice No probs.
Re: Hands On: Squashing Space Pirates in Metroid Prime: Federation Force
@Wolfgabe Trust me; it's a bullcrap excuse for having bobble-head characters in this particular game.
Re: Hands On: Squashing Space Pirates in Metroid Prime: Federation Force
@rushiosan There's always a "great" excuse that some tool will simply accept without question. lol
Re: Ubisoft CEO Says Nintendo NX Will Help Grow The Industry And Pull In Casual Players
@Project_Dolphin See above.
Re: NES Visual Compendium Dispute Comes To An End, Kickstarter Resumes For Final 24 Hours
@-DEMISE- Well, that's probably exactly what Nintendo said. It's a fine line though, and each of those pages does contain at least some text and content about the game, so it's not just an image reprinted with no editorial content to go alongside it. It just happens that these images are large, so it creates the illusion that somehow there's more copyrighted material there or something. But, imagine if they'd literally only been a typical screenshot size as seen in the Mean Machines example (and only partial screenshots at that), with exactly the same text as in the compendium right now. . . .
And, let's just be clear here: It's a partial image of a single screenshot taken from an entire video game that is comprised of literally hundreds of thousands or even millions of said screens, which has been scaled way beyond normal display size and resolution to cover two pages in a magazine. It's not like these guys have taken the entire game content and posted it right there on the page, or even close to it. With the game covers, sure. they are almost literally just copied and pasted, but surely it should be acceptable to include a handful of those too in among a book that is at least a couple of hundred of pages long (likely more since all the stretch goals have been blown away).
Like I said, I don't think these guys are doing anything untoward; I just think Nintendo is pushing its luck and the limits of the law in order to make another quick and easy buck. But, I guess the same could arguably be argued about the guys making the magazine too—not by me though.
Re: Gallery: A Look at the Quirky Delights of the Play Nintendo Family Lounge at San Diego Comic-Con
@retro_player_22 They won't. They already know this thing is going to sell as is. Any things that could make it even better, they basically don't care about at this point. It's a cheap and easy to mass produce money spinner.
Re: Nintendo's Official UK Store Opens Pre-Orders for the Nintendo Classic Mini NES
It's REALLY stupid and annoying, as well as being a sneaky hidden extra cost, that the UK version of this doesn't come with a power adaptor.
Re: Nintendo Entertainment System: NES Classic Edition Gets a Snazzy Trailer and Website
Oh, and it's REALLY stupid and annoying, as well as being a hidden extra cost, that the UK version of this doesn't come with a power adaptor.
But the Ad is still awesome.
Re: Ubisoft CEO Says Nintendo NX Will Help Grow The Industry And Pull In Casual Players
@Project_Dolphin This conversation is over, but you go ahead and keep convincing yourself, and maybe a few other weak minded people, that you're not clueless in this particular regard.